Re: Things we remember...
Rebecca Rice
> Butch Malahide wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Butch Malahide wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 11:32 am, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> pay to park my car at the airport when picking somebody up instead of
>>>>> just snatching them off the curb,
>>>> I can't quite picture how that works. Where are you when you get the
>>>> phone call that they are ready to be picked up? Driving circles around
>>>> the airport in your car?
>>> At home. They call you, you drive out, you call them as
>>> you're arriving
>>> at the airport, they come out just as you drive up, pick 'em up at
>>> the curb.
>>
>> I still don't get it.
>
> Obviously.
>
> If I'm at home, I don't need a cell phone, I
>> have a real telephone. Where are they calling from? If they've arrived
>> at the airport, they don't need a cell phone either, they can use a
>> payphone there (and then wait an hour or so while I drive to the
>> airport from home).
>
> But using a payphone is a pain in the butt compared to pulling out
> your cell and calling. Assuming your payphones exist, and are working,
> and are not occupied. And you have the money to use with them.
>
> Then they wait, comfortably inside, while you drive out, assuming
> that you didn't anticipate and set out earlier. The latter depends on
> whether you trust airline schedules.
>
> When you're getting close, you call, they assemble their stuff and
> head out. By the time they get outside, you're pulling up, they get in.
>
> Otherwise, either you have to park your car (paying money), go in
> and find your friend, then go back, bring your car around, etc., or else
> HE has to stand outside watching for you to arrive and dash out.
>
>
All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports
than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb"
doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in
the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and
when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to
the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are
cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much
easier to park and walk over to where the person is and
bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking
garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it
doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
Rebecca
Mike Ash
Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports
> than the ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb"
> doesn't help when you have to figure out exactly where in
> the "loading and unloading only zone" you have to be, and
> when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to get to
> the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are
> cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much
> easier to park and walk over to where the person is and
> bring them back to my car, personally. Most airport parking
> garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and it
> doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
"OK, I got my bags, I'm coming out the middle door. Let me see, looks
like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
"I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
"A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
"Yep!"
Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Rebecca Rice
Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a
hands-free phone, which I don't. And also much more likely
to result in a crash (given that speaking on a cell phone
while driving is equivalent to driving drunk) and that
airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I live
when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
Rebecca
Kurt Busiek
And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an
interest in getting the equipment to do it.
A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free"
phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so
saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot
like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas
in the car."
If you're going to argue "It's not easier because I don't have the
hardware," then you can just fall back on, "I don't have a cell phone
so it's not easier." Or even "I don't like it, it's scary and modern,"
which seems to be what much of this anti-cell-phone fooferah seems to
boil down to.
This thread branch started when someone said that life was simpler
without cell phones. It isn't.
To someone without a cell phone, it's in many ways the same as it ever
was, and in some ways it's simpler (less competition for the pay
phones, for instance). To people with cell phones, there are so many
ways that they're a convenience that yes, those advantages are actual
advantages.
The argument that people using cell phones illegally in traffic has
merit, though it's pretty much the same argument when it wasn't cell
phones but hamburgers or Egg McMuffins that people were involved with
as they drove, and thus paying less attention. Meetings that people
interrupt to take phone calls are poorly-run meetings, and whoever's
running them needs to set some rules.
But "It's not simpler because I don't do it" doesn't hold much water;
the reason it's not simpler isn't because cell phones are inherently
complicating, it's because you don't have the small piece of equipment
required. Whether you don't have it because you don't know about it,
don't want it or can't afford it, that's not a weakness of the cell
phone, it's your own choice.
I sympathized with whoever described this thread as a bunch of science
fiction fans complaining about SF-come-true, and I'm sympathizing with
it more and more.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Butch Malahide
> On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecca_r...@att.net> said:
> > Mike Ash wrote:
> >> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
That still exists only in science fiction!
> > Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free phone,
> > which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash (given
> > that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to driving
> > drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate where I
> > live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not easier.
>
> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an
> interest in getting the equipment to do it.
>
> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free"
> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so
> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot
> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas
> in the car."
So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands
phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are
certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they
haven't done so yet.
Kurt Busiek
It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
Wayne Throop
: So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands
: phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are
: certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they
: haven't done so yet.
It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting
than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as
I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers,
of course.
FWIW it's always been annoying/distracting/immersion-breaking to see the
quite common scenes in movies and tv shows where a driver turns to face
a passenger to talk with them. Without so much as a glance back out at
the road for tens of seconds at a stretch. In real life, I've only seen
drivers glance aside, or possibly turn aside but frequently glance back.
The way it's frequently depicted just *screams* "they're really on a
sound stage or whatnot!", at least, to me.
And may I add that I'm just as happy for not seeing such things irl.
"When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa,
not screaming in terror like his passengers."
--- no attrib
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Kurt Busiek
> On Nov 8, 3:57�pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free"
>> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so
>> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot
>> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas
>> in the car."
>
> So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere?
As far as I can tell, yes.
According to
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html -- no state
completely bans all cellphone use. Six (plus DC and the Virgin
Islands) ban handhelds, not hands-free.
21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a
law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding
that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving,
which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23
haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey,
grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
Mike Ash
Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
Many trivial ways to get around the illegality:
1) Hands-free headset.
2) Speaker phone.
3) Pull over to the side when talking. (Lots of places to do this at
airports.)
4) Have a passenger with you.
Butch Malahide
> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Nov 8, 3:57 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> >> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free"
> >> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so
> >> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot
> >> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas
> >> in the car."
>
> > So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere?
>
> As far as I can tell, yes.
>
> completely bans all cellphone use. Six (plus DC and the Virgin
> Islands) ban handhelds, not hands-free.
>
> 21 states do ban hands-free phone use for novice drivers.
>
> What boggles me is that 9 states have gone to the trouble of passing a
> law banning text messaging by novice drivers. That requires deciding
> that experienced drivers should be _allowed_ to text while driving,
> which strikes me as astoundingly stupid. 18 states ban texting, and 23
> haven't addressed it at all -- but to address it and decide that hey,
> grownups texting while driving is no problem? Yeesh.
You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet?
What's holding it back?
Kurt Busiek
The powerful keyboard lobby!
Butch Malahide
> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> said:
> > So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands
> > phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are
> > certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they
> > haven't done so yet.
>
> It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
If not more so. There are times when driving demands more of your
attention than usual. Your passenger is more likely to be aware of
what's going on than the person on the phone, and to shut up when he
needs to.
Kurt Busiek
In the specific scenario that brought this to hand, though -- the
picking-up-at-airport one -- that doesn't apply, since the person on
the other end of the phone is actually giving directions the driver
wants to use at present.
In the larger scenario, the driver is capable of saying, "Quiet a sec,"
which admittedly may not work on either phone call person or passenger,
but shouldn't be discounted as a strategy. And again, screaming
children lurching about in back seat is not considered detrimental
enough to a driver's concentration to ban, so it's hard to imagine the
phone caller that would be worse than that, or even close to that level
without being hung up on.
And while passengers may be "more likely" to be observant, the
unobervant ones are still legally allowed to ride.
Dimensional Traveler
privacy and politeness. I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
matter what. Now that I don't have to be available at all times I like
being able to go do my own thing without having to worry about being
interrupted or bothered by anyone with a whim to do so.
As for politeness, fine, that may be a generational thing but that
doesn't mean I have to contribute to it.
So my cell sits on the bookshelf by my desk. If I feel like taking it
with me when I go out, I'll grab it, but mostly it just doesn't occur to
me to bother. And it goes on silent mode frequently when I do take it.
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Dimensional Traveler
back the Oleo Ban? :-P
Kurt Busiek
Which is fine, but that's your wish, not an inherent evil of cell phones.
When I don't want to be available by cell, I turn it off. I am then in
pretty much the same situation I'd be in if I was away from home and
had only a landline, except that I have greater convenience available
-- if for some reason I decide I want to make a call or check messages,
I can turn the phone back on. It's under my control, and having a cell
phone does not mean I have no choice but to be bothered by anyone with
a whim to do so.
> So my cell sits on the bookshelf by my desk. If I feel like taking it
> with me when I go out, I'll grab it, but mostly it just doesn't occur
> to me to bother. And it goes on silent mode frequently when I do take
> it.
And thus, your cell phone use can be customized to your wants and
needs; so useful that way.
I used to leave my cell at home most of the time because I work at home
and just wasn't in the habit of using it, so I rarely remembered to
take it with me, except on business trips when I was hampered by the
fact that I used it so little I had to learn various stuff over and
over.
Once I ported my office number over to the cell, so that I use it as my
primary phone, I got a lot more practice with it, got in the habit of
carrying it around, and found it much more useful. Plus, my phone
bills went down and I don't get bothered by calls when I don't want to,
because (a) most people who have the number are people I'm open to
hearing from, and (b) I turn it off when I don't want to be disturbed.
erilar
wrote:
> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
driving on I-anything.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Kurt Busiek
> In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
>
> When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
> when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
> driving on I-anything.
I've been known to pull over until they shut up, too, though generally
they'll quiet down once yelled at; I have them trained that well, at
least. And up to a certain height/weight/age, it's the law these days
that they ride in the back, in most states I've been in lately.
But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
Dorothy J Heydt
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
>
>When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
>when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
>driving on I-anything.
Even if you had been, and there was no exit for miles and miles,
you could, I think, have pulled over to the shoulder and set your
flashers flashing.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
David DeLaney
> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com>
>: So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands
>: phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are
>: certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they
>: haven't done so yet.
>
>It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting
>than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as
>I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers,
>of course.
Various places in the US have figured out that it's causing problems on the
same order as regular cellphones while driving; I'm fairly sure parts of
Tennessee are included.
And as others have pointed out, the person on the other end of the cellphone
can't -see- when you need to be paying more attention to the road the way a
passenger can. (And, as near as I can tell, the kind of person who talks on
a cellphone while driving generally won't -tell- the person on the other end
of the cellphone to hush for a bit, or hang up without warning and call back
later.)
>And may I add that I'm just as happy for not seeing such things irl.
Ditto.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> said:
>>> You mean they haven't got the technology for hands-free texting yet?
>>> What's holding it back?
>>
>> The powerful keyboard lobby!
>>
>In conjunction with the butter lobby in return for helping them bring
>back the Oleo Ban? :-P
Hot buttered schwas for EVERYONE! It's their guttural, oleaginous RIGHT!
Dorothy J Heydt
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>privacy and politeness. I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
>legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
>people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
>matter what.
My husband used to be, in effect, available 24/7 to the computer
room that ran his programs. There were no cellphones then (we're
talking early 1970s), but we had a landline phone right by the
bed and every now and then it would ring in the middle of the
night. Hal would pick it up, listen, and sometimes he would say,
"OK, I'll be right over." He would then get dressed, get into
the car, and drive across the Bay. Or, he would listen and then
say, "OK, go to line 467 and change the slash-asterisk-slash to a
slash-slash-asterisk," [or words to that effect] "and run it
again and if it still doesn't work call me back," and hang up and
he'd be asleep again before his head hit the pillow. And mostly
they wouldn't call back.
And I'm not convinced that he was actually awake when he answered
some of those calls. He could do FORTRAN and COBOL in his sleep.
The only, only time I ever heard him talk in his sleep (well, of
course I listened), he was giving me instructions on how to fix
my COBOL program, even though I didn't have one.
So cell phones are neither necessary nor sufficient.
Robert Bannister
> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the ones
> I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you have to
> figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only zone" you
> have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of traffic to
> get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that are cutting
> over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to park and walk
> over to where the person is and bring them back to my car, personally.
> Most airport parking garages give you the first 15-30 minutes free, and
> it doesn't take me longer than that to get my arrival and go.
We are having a mining boom and the workers are all employed on a "fly
in, fly out" basis, which means two thirds of the aiport's car park is
perpetually occupied. On top of that, there is no free period and the
airport charges more than any other place in the city. So, these days, I
tell my friends and relations to pay the $30 taxi fare and I'll have
food and/or drinks ready when they arrive at my house. I do drop them
off at the airport when they leave, though.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
> It's not clear that talking on a handsfree cellphone is more distracting
> than talking to a passenger, and arguably it's less. Yet so far as
> I know, nobody's up in arms to ban it. Other than for bus drivers,
> of course.
There's been a lot of talk by my state government about banning it. So
far, it's only talk, but they have got serious about other even more
trivial matters.
--
Rob Bannister
Western Australia
W. Citoan
I've heard claims that there are studies that say it (hands free cell
phone use) is more distracting then the equivalent conversation with a
person inside the car. I've yet to actually see one of those studies
though...
- W. Citoan
--
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death
stand wide; but to climb back up again, to retrace one's steps to the
upper air - there's the rub, the task.
-- Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil)
Wayne Throop
: There are times when driving demands more of your
: attention than usual. Your passenger is more likely to be aware of
: what's going on than the person on the phone, and to shut up when he
: needs to.
You mean like, the passenger sees brake lights or whatnot, shuts up in the
middle of a sentence so the conversation doesn't distract the driver, the
driver glances over to see why the passenger chopped off (perhaps to check
what direction the passenger is looking), and rearends the car ahead?
Wayne Throop
: And as others have pointed out, the person on the other end of the cellphone
: can't -see- when you need to be paying more attention to the road the way a
: passenger can.
But on the other hand, the driver can see when to ignore somebody on the
phone, and it's arguably easier to ignore a tinny voice in your ear
than somebody actually in the car. And there's no particular
temptation to glance at the person on the phone to check their
body language.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>In article <drache-DF7CD8....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
>>
>>When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
>>when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
>>driving on I-anything.
>
>Even if you had been, and there was no exit for miles and miles,
>you could, I think, have pulled over to the shoulder and set your
>flashers flashing.
In the UK, it is illegal to do that on a motorway except in an
emergency. I think some other places have the same rule.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Robert Carnegie
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:54:16 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <drache-DF7CD8....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >>In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
> >>
> >>When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
> >>when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
> >>driving on I-anything.
> >
> >Even if you had been, and there was no exit for miles and miles,
> >you could, I think, have pulled over to the shoulder and set your
> >flashers flashing.
>
> In the UK, it is illegal to do that on a motorway except in an
> emergency. I think some other places have the same rule.
But surely the kids going nuts in the back counts as an emergency?
Rebecca Rice
> On 2009-11-08 13:27:55 -0800, Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> said:
>
>> Mike Ash wrote:
>>> In article <hd5qas$1bb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>
>>>> All I can say is that you apparently have smaller airports than the
>>>> ones I use. Having someone wait "at the curb" doesn't help when you
>>>> have to figure out exactly where in the "loading and unloading only
>>>> zone" you have to be, and when you need to cut across the 5 lanes of
>>>> traffic to get to the curb. And then deal with the other cars that
>>>> are cutting over to or away from the curb. I find it much easier to
>>>> park and walk over to where the person is and bring them back to my
>>>> car, personally. Most airport parking garages give you the first
>>>> 15-30 minutes free, and it doesn't take me longer than that to get
>>>> my arrival and go.
>>>
>>> like it's door 5. Right under the sign that says 'Fruitair'."
>>>
>>> "I'm coming around the corner now... where are you exactly?"
>>>
>>> "A little farther up. Here, I'll wave. See me?"
>>>
>>> "Yep!"
>>>
>>> Instantaneous communication at a distance is nifty.
>>
>> Also entirely illegal where I live, unless you have a hands-free
>> phone, which I don't. And also much more likely to result in a crash
>> (given that speaking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to
>> driving drunk) and that airport traffic is a nightmare to negotiate
>> where I live when I can give it my full attention. So no, that's not
>> easier.
>
> And yet, it's simpler for millions, regardless of whether you have an
> interest in getting the equipment to do it.
>
> A bluetooth earpiece -- all that's necessary for the "hands free"
> phoning involved in the above scenario -- isn't terribly expensive, so
> saying, "Can't do that because I don't have the capability" is a lot
> like saying, "Can't pick up anyone at the airport 'cause there's no gas
> in the car."
>
> If you're going to argue "It's not easier because I don't have the
> hardware," then you can just fall back on, "I don't have a cell phone so
> it's not easier." Or even "I don't like it, it's scary and modern,"
> which seems to be what much of this anti-cell-phone fooferah seems to
> boil down to.
>
> without cell phones. It isn't.
>
> To someone without a cell phone, it's in many ways the same as it ever
> was, and in some ways it's simpler (less competition for the pay phones,
> for instance). To people with cell phones, there are so many ways that
> they're a convenience that yes, those advantages are actual advantages.
>
I think the thing that bothers me is that in most of the
situations where people say "cell phones make life more
convenient"... they don't make it any more convenient than
the slightest amount of planning does. At a store and not
sure which of 5 brands the person making the list wanted?
It's just as convenient for the person making the list to
specify the brand if they really care, and to assume that
the lack of specifics means any of the five brands is ok.
In these days of e-mail, sending some one your flight
itinerary is a pretty good way of ensuring that you are all
at the right airport at the right time. And even assuming
that you don't do that, calling the person the day before to
say "I'm coming in at 5 pm at Love Field... No, not DFW...
the ticket says Love" is a fairly easy thing to do. Why
someone waits until they are on the plane to realize that
their pick-up is going to the wrong airport is beyond me.
And I believe it's also resentment that people feel at being
forced to adopt a new technology because enough other people
have that the old ways that used to work are no longer
available. Take the car, for example. Before anyone had
cars, you didn't need one. You shopped locally, worshiped
locally, went to school locally. You married someone from
your community. You lived close to your relatives and
friends. Then the car comes along. At first, it's just a
rich person's toy (the same people who had fancy carriages
and could afford to travel before), so it doesn't have too
much impact on the average person's life. But more and more
people start to have a car, or know someone with one.
Suddenly, you can start shopping at bigger stores further
away. You can go hear that new preacher over in the next
parish, and switch churches if you desire. You may even
wind up marrying someone from the (gasp!) next county. And
as more people get cars, it gets harder to live without one.
Some of the local stores close down, unable to compete
with bigger ones further away. The city may decide to
consolidate several small schools into one bigger one, etc.
And eventually you get to a point where those without
cars are considered weird or hopelessly old-fashioned. Now,
is life with cars better than life without them? In some
ways, yes. You can go to places you never could before, you
have the ability to move larger amounts of things, you can
expand your circle of friends beyond your immediate
neighborhood. But there is a downside as well... you lose a
lot of the closeness of the old local neighborhood. People
become more transient, and you get the situation where you
may not even know the name of the person who lives two doors
down. So, there are pluses and minuses to the advance in
technology. And those people who keep talking about how
great cell phones are make it sound like life 20 years ago
was this terrible time when life was complicated and and
people had to go to extraordinary lengths to do the simplest
things, and don't acknowledge that there were, in fact, some
good things about those days that have been (or are in the
process of being) lost in this new social shift.
Rebecca
John F. Eldredge
I don't know what sort of distraction was involved, but yesterday I saw
someone almost rear-end a row of stopped cars on an Interstate exit
ramp. When they did realize the situation, they slammed on the brakes,
went through a 90-degree spin, and came to a stop, sideways to the
driving lane, about 10 feet short of the line of stopped cars.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
William December Starr
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> said:
> I don't know what sort of distraction was involved, but
> yesterday I saw someone almost rear-end a row of stopped cars on
> an Interstate exit ramp. When they did realize the situation,
> they slammed on the brakes, went through a 90-degree spin, and
> came to a stop, sideways to the driving lane, about 10 feet
> short of the line of stopped cars.
I once saw the Boston Driver described as someone who would see
something like that happen and exclaim to his car-mate: "Man, I
wish _I_ had the guts to do that."
-- wds
Dorothy J Heydt
Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
>
>And I believe it's also resentment that people feel at being
>forced to adopt a new technology because enough other people
>have that the old ways that used to work are no longer
>available. Take the car, for example. Before anyone had
>cars, you didn't need one. You shopped locally, worshiped
>locally, went to school locally. You married someone from
>your community. You lived close to your relatives and
>friends.
I don't know about you: that concept sends shivers up my spine.
Except that as soon as there were railroads, or even
stagecoaches, it was *possible* to get away from your home town
and set up somewhere else: merely difficult. If you wanted badly
enough to get away from the place where everyone knew, not only
all the dumb things you had ever done, but what your parents and
grandparents and back up along the family tree whither the memory
of man runneth not to the contrary, you could do it.
Then the car comes along.
High time.
Juho Julkunen
> I think the thing that bothers me is that in most of the
> situations where people say "cell phones make life more
> convenient"... they don't make it any more convenient than
> the slightest amount of planning does. At a store and not
Except when planning fails, of course. "Oh, we need eggs too; I forgot
to put them on the list." "We were supposed to meet today? I completely
forgot, even though we carefully arrangend matters days in advance.
Sorry."
And then there are the other situations, like when you inexplicably
fail to make arrengements in case you break your leg while hiking out
in the woods.
Are you comparing the convenience of cell phones to landlines or no
phones at all? If you can honestly claim phones don't make life more
convenient... well, I don't know what to say. If you are merely saying
a phone you can take with you is no more convenient then a phone tied
to one location, I'll still have to disagree. "Wanna go shopping?"
"Sorry, I can't, I'm expecting a phone call."
--
Juho Julkunen
Wayne Throop
:: planning does.
: Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com>
: Are you comparing the convenience of cell phones to landlines or no
: phones at all? If you can honestly claim phones don't make life more
: convenient... well, I don't know what to say. If you are merely
: saying a phone you can take with you is no more convenient then a
: phone tied to one location, I'll still have to disagree. "Wanna go
: shopping?" "Sorry, I can't, I'm expecting a phone call."
Ah, but you see, you *planned* to receive that call. So, your
"slightest amount of planning" reserved the time, so quite rightly,
and with perfect convenience, you turned down frivolous distractions.
Likewise, "I've fallen and I can't get up to call 911" merely indicates
you didn't plan your fall adequately. The slightest amount of planning
should have told you to have the ambulance at the scene already.
"One of the problems with people here -- is that
they do not take sacred vows at all seriously."
--- http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20050225
Kurt Busiek
> I think the thing that bothers me is that in most of the situations
> where people say "cell phones make life more convenient"... they don't
> make it any more convenient than the slightest amount of planning does.
I think this thread has had many examples of places where conveniences
exist that can't be handled by advance planning -- orcan help adjust
for when advance planning goes awry.
> And I believe it's also resentment that people feel at being forced to
> adopt a new technology because enough other people have that the old
> ways that used to work are no longer available.
That may be one of the points where "My God, we're SF fans!" is coming
into play.
"Goddamn jetpacks! I remember when a horse and buggy was perfectly good!"
> Take the car, for example. Before anyone had cars, you didn't need
> one. You shopped locally, worshiped locally, went to school locally.
> You married someone from your community. You lived close to your
> relatives and friends.
I will say I'm delighted to do a lot of shopping online, to live 300
miles away from where I was born (but to do work for companies
thousands of miles away from me) and to have met and married a woman
born hudreds of miles from me.
> And those people who keep talking about how great cell phones are make
> it sound like life 20 years ago was this terrible time when life was
> complicated and and people had to go to extraordinary lengths to do the
> simplest things, and don't acknowledge that there were, in fact, some
> good things about those days that have been (or are in the process of
> being) lost in this new social shift.
I don't think anyone here has been saying that life 20 years ago was
awful. If they were, I missed it.
I think my cell phone is a wonderful thing -- SF made real, as someone
noted -- but that doesn't make me thik, "My wonderful new cell phone is
something I will consider baseline ordinary, and therefore anything
less sucks rocks." What I grew up with is what feels baseline ordinary
to me, so the advances feel like Cool New Additions, and not like a
vantage point to cast my childhood as Hell on Earth.
I grew up without central air conditioning. Didn't bother me. I'm
glad to have it now, but that makes me think what I have no is better,
not that what I had before was awful.
I like living in the future. I look forward to what else it brings.
Kurt Busiek
I learned to drive in the Boston area, and I'd concur with that.
We used to say the difference between Boston drivers and other bad
drivers was that Boston drivers knew exactly what laws they were
breaking, and were doing so intentionally, because they were in a
hurry, while bad New Jersey drivers (for example) were garden-variety
incompetent.
Also the reason that there was no state slogan on the Massachusetts
license plates for so long was because they weren't allowed to put "Get
the Fuck Out of My Way" on a state-issued plate.
Mike Ash
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> My husband used to be, in effect, available 24/7 to the computer
> room that ran his programs. There were no cellphones then (we're
> talking early 1970s), but we had a landline phone right by the
> bed and every now and then it would ring in the middle of the
> night. Hal would pick it up, listen, and sometimes he would say,
> "OK, I'll be right over." He would then get dressed, get into
> the car, and drive across the Bay. Or, he would listen and then
> say, "OK, go to line 467 and change the slash-asterisk-slash to a
> slash-slash-asterisk," [or words to that effect] "and run it
> again and if it still doesn't work call me back," and hang up and
> he'd be asleep again before his head hit the pillow. And mostly
> they wouldn't call back.
>
> And I'm not convinced that he was actually awake when he answered
> some of those calls. He could do FORTRAN and COBOL in his sleep.
> The only, only time I ever heard him talk in his sleep (well, of
> course I listened), he was giving me instructions on how to fix
> my COBOL program, even though I didn't have one.
>
> So cell phones are neither necessary nor sufficient.
They (or some other wireless messaging system, like a pager) are
necessary if you ever want to leave the house while on call. Some people
may not care about this, but it's an extremely common desire.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash
wrote:
> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
Dorothy J Heydt
He did have a (company-supplied) pager at some point, but that
was later and for a different job. When did pagers come into
use, anyway?
Wayne Throop
:: necessary if you ever want to leave the house while on call. Some
:: people may not care about this, but it's an extremely common desire.
: djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
: He did have a (company-supplied) pager at some point, but that was
: later and for a different job. When did pagers come into use, anyway?
Google finds
http://inventors.about.com/od/pstartinventions/a/pager.htm
In 1921, the first pager-like system was in use by the Detroit
Police Department. However, it was not until 1949 that the very
first telephone pager was patented. The inventor's name was Al
Gross and his pagers were first used in New York City's Jewish
Hospital. Al Gross' pager was not a consumer device available to
everyone. The FCC did not approve the pager for public use until
1958.
Wikipedia sez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pager
Pagers are still in use today in places where mobile phones
typically cannot reach users, and also in places where the operation
of the radio transmitters contained in mobile phones is problematic
or prohibited.
[...]
Because of superior building penetration and availability of service
in disaster situations, pagers are often used by first responders in
emergencies.
I got one in '96 or thereabouts. Pagers tended to fall out of use
by maybe 2000, 2002 maybe? I'm suspecting use started to ramp up
so that more than just doctors and the such were using them
in the early 80s, maybe late 70s.
IIRC, Clifford Stoll, in "The Cuckoo's Egg" used his pager to inform him
when a hacker was attacking his trap system. So the trick of having
your computer page you when certain events occured, such as a process
completing, or getting email from a specific person, which humble people
such as myself used in the 90s, was used by the intelligensia in the 80s.
Dimensional Traveler
programming and support for 911 centers. If a priority one call came in
we were supposed to be on the line with the client agency and connecting
to their system within 10 minutes. When it was your turn on the
afterhours pager, that pretty much meant that except to get to and from
the office you didn't leave your home at all for that week (and you made
sure someone was covering for you while you did that). Usually I just
informed the office that I was working from home all week those weeks
and made sure my 'fridge and pantry were well stocked. (This was six
years ago before wireless broadband became a factor, so access to most
clients' systems was dial-up modem requiring you to use a landline.
For security reasons very few allowed access via the 'net even with VPNs.)
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <hd7opu$gon$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
>> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
>> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
>
> Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
> hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
> using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
>
looking for how your car behaves. Is it weaving? Changing speed
frequently? Tailgating? You'll get pulled over for the unsafe driving
and then he or she will worry about why you were driving badly according
to what I've been told by various officers.
Dimensional Traveler
If you can convince the officer it is, then it is. :D
Dimensional Traveler
Politicians everywhere have been more serious about more trivial
matters. Its integral to their nature as politicians. :D
Jerry Brown
wrote:
<snip>
> "When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa,
> not screaming in terror like his passengers."
> --- no attrib
--- Emo Phillips
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Cheryl
> In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty distracting.
>
> When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
> when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I wasn't
> driving on I-anything.
>
My parents always said that rule was a safety measure - the front seat
was FAR to dangerous for children to ride in, so we ALWAYS had to sit in
the back - and not fight, of course. Not even if your sister was putting
her hand on your side of the seat.
Ah, memories!
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person (well, and other
relatives) who was almost never dropped off or picked up at an airport.
It's so much easier, usually, to take a bus, shuttle or taxi, depending
on the circumstances, and not that expensive since it only happens
several times a year (and if I'm working, the employer pays). No one's
inconvenienced.
--
Cheryl
erilar
Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And then there are the other situations, like when you inexplicably
> fail to make arrengements in case you break your leg while hiking out
> in the woods.
That's when I DO take my otherwise-idle cell phone along. My dog is no
Lassie to fetch help.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Dorothy J Heydt
I have somewhere about a treatise on managing sibling rivalry,
with the title, _Mom! Joey's Breathing On Me!_
Michael Stemper
>Kurt Busiek wrote:
>Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>privacy and politeness.
I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
Could you explain?
> I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
>legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
>people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
>matter what.
I don't see any relationship between this and cell phones, either. Do
you have a land line? If somebody calls you at 0200, will it ring and
wake you up? My cell phone comes with an "off" button, which I use
every night when I go to bed.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?
Cryptoengineer
> In article <hd7opu$go...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
> > But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
> > in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
> > hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
>
> Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
> hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
> using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
This, I think, is a big part of why car cellphone usage is such a
lightning rod. I've seen studies that showed that other passengers
were the most common form of accident causing distraction, but you
can't see if people in another car are talking. You CAN see if they
are holding a cellphone.
pt
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On 2009-11-08 14:07:17 -0800, Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>> So no-hands phoning is legal everywhere? I've read that no-hands
>> phones are almost as distracting as hands-on phones, and there are
>> certainly people who want to ban their use while driving, even if they
>> haven't done so yet.
>
> It's as distracting as conversing with the person in the passenger seat.
>
There are several studies that say otherwise:
"Driver distraction - in which mobile phone use is one of
the leading distractions - contributes to an estimated 23%
of crashes. Research I have undertaken has shown that the
use of a hand held mobile phone whilst driving increases
the risk of crashing 4-fold whilst the use of hands-free
mobile phone use whilst driving increases the risk 3.8-fold.
Importantly, the risk of crashing is increased despite the
age or sex of the driver."
How does a mobile phone compare to other distractions, such
as passengers?
"Driver simulator research has shown that there is a distinct
difference between mobile phone use and passengers, with
mobile phone use a greater distraction. This can be explained
in part, by the fact that passengers moderate their conversation
to take account of the driving tasks at-hand."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0910/S00431.htm
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Sean O'Hara
> In article <hd7opu$gon$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
>> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
>> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
>
> Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
> hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
> using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
>
How are drunk-driving laws enforced? The cop sees you driving
erratically or violating traffic laws, pulls you over, and smells
booze on your breath. Replace the last clause with "sees bluetooth
headset on your ear" and you have your answer.
Kurt Busiek
I see they didn't use the "screaming kid" model of passenger, so maybe
they think those have already been outlawed.
The article also cites a study saying that the distraction of an
"in-car entertainment system" is more of a distracter than the
hands-free phoning. They don't define "entertainment system," but
going to the article the cite and looking, it seems they're referring
to the radio/CD-player.
Better ban those. Worse than cell phones.
Sean O'Hara
> >
> I've heard claims that there are studies that say it (hands free cell
> phone use) is more distracting then the equivalent conversation with a
> person inside the car. I've yet to actually see one of those studies
> though...
>
Google "hands free phones dangerous". The whole first page consists
of news stories reporting various studies on the subject.
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
>Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>>Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>>Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>>privacy and politeness.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
>Could you explain?
>
>> I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
>>legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
>>people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
>>matter what.
>
>I don't see any relationship between this and cell phones, either. Do
>you have a land line? If somebody calls you at 0200, will it ring and
>wake you up? My cell phone comes with an "off" button, which I use
>every night when I go to bed.
Alternatively, you could have two phones. Cellphones, landlines,
whatever floats your boat. The few people to whom you are on
call are the *only* ones who know one of the numbers.
Kurt Busiek
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Mike Ash declared:
>> In article <hd7opu$gon$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
>>> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
>>> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
>>
>> Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
>> hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
>> using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
>
> How are drunk-driving laws enforced? The cop sees you driving
> erratically or violating traffic laws, pulls you over, and smells booze
> on your breath. Replace the last clause with "sees bluetooth headset on
> your ear" and you have your answer.
People who wear bluetooth headsets on their ear are not all on the
phone. My wife wears hers most of the day. So that would only amount
to suspicion, not proof. Just as they'd need to breathalyze a
drunk-driver suspect, they could bring you in and get your phone
records to see if that cell phone was active at the time. The process
would take up more time and expense than most police departments would
be willing to spend on it, I'd bet.
In some of the states where handheld cellphone use while driving is
illegal, you don't have to be driving erratically -- merely talking on
the phone is enough to get you pulled over. In others, you can only be
charged if you were observed violating some other law as well.
Kurt Busiek
> On 2009-11-09 10:36:13 -0800, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Mike Ash declared:
>>> In article <hd7opu$gon$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
>>>> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
>>>> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
>>>
>>> Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
>>> hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
>>> using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
>>
>> How are drunk-driving laws enforced? The cop sees you driving
>> erratically or violating traffic laws, pulls you over, and smells booze
>> on your breath. Replace the last clause with "sees bluetooth headset on
>> your ear" and you have your answer.
>
> People who wear bluetooth headsets on their ear are not all on the phone.
Nor, for that matter, are all people without bluetooth headsets not on
the phone.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Even if you had been, and there was no exit for miles and miles,
> you could, I think, have pulled over to the shoulder and set your
> flashers flashing.
All the interstates I've driven on had "breakdown lanes" for exactly
such an emergency.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Mike Ash
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Mike Ash declared:
> > In article <hd7opu$gon$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But given that it is perfectly legal to drive on I-anything with kids
> >> in the car, however rowdy they might be, I don't think banning
> >> hands-free cell phone communication is going to get any real traction.
> >
> > Even if it did, how would you enforce it? A cop can see you with your
> > hand up to your ear, but he can't distinguish between talking business
> > using an earpiece and simply singing along with the radio.
>
> How are drunk-driving laws enforced? The cop sees you driving
> erratically or violating traffic laws, pulls you over, and smells
> booze on your breath. Replace the last clause with "sees bluetooth
> headset on your ear" and you have your answer.
Except that you can pull a headset from your ear in about half a second,
whereas it's rather harder to eliminate the alcohol from your system.
W. Citoan
> In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional
> Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>
> >Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
> >privacy and politeness.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and
> politeness. Could you explain?
Er, people being impolite while on their cell phone is a pretty rampant
phenomenon. While I blame the person over the technology, there are
certainly a lot of users who should be (figuratively) smacked upside the
head.
- W. Citoan
--
Give me where to stand, and I shall move the world.
-- Archimedes
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>>
>> Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>> privacy and politeness.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
> Could you explain?
>
You've never encountered the jackasses who don't realize that
everyone around them can hear what they're saying into the phone as
they loudly describe their personal problems?
Or the idiots who think it's okay to talk on the phone while in a
movie theater? Or don't realize that their LCD screens are
distracting to the people behind them as they text their friends?
Or the guys so engrossed in their conversation that they don't
bother to say "excuse me," "please," "thank you," "hello," or
"good-bye" to the people they're dealing with in meat-space?
Too many people think cell-phones are an excuse to be oblivious to
everything around them, which meets my criteria for "impolite."
Wayne Throop
: Er, people being impolite while on their cell phone is a pretty rampant
: phenomenon. While I blame the person over the technology, there are
: certainly a lot of users who should be (figuratively) smacked upside the
: head.
Do you mean the talking-in-theater kind of impoliteness,
or the yakking-while-in-a-checkout-line-slowing-things-down
kind of impoliteness, or the harassing-people-who-don't-have-
or-don't-answer-a-cellphone kind of impoliteness, or some other kind?
David DeLaney
>The article also cites a study saying that the distraction of an
>"in-car entertainment system" is more of a distracter than the
>hands-free phoning. They don't define "entertainment system," but
>going to the article the cite and looking, it seems they're referring
>to the radio/CD-player.
>
>Better ban those. Worse than cell phones.
If they do then _I_ won't be able to drive any more. I need the radio on - and
playing music, not a commercial or some DJ talking to hear themselves talk -
so that I don't start thinking about something or other, get distracted, and
tune out that hey, I'm actually driving from one place to another and need to
PAY ATTENTION to that. For some reason, music I can listen to, or hum/sing
along with, fills the "does not take very much attention / does not distract
from the task at hand" slot along with the 'keeps any other distractions, deep
thinking, etc., at bay' slot.
(Having a passenger try to carry on a conversation with me would probably Fail
in much the same way that having a DJ think I want to pay attention to what
they're rambling about does. Luckily I virtually never have passengers to
deal with.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> The article also cites a study saying that the distraction of an
>> "in-car entertainment system" is more of a distracter than the
>> hands-free phoning. They don't define "entertainment system," but
>> going to the article the cite and looking, it seems they're referring
>> to the radio/CD-player.
>>
>> Better ban those. Worse than cell phones.
>
> If they do then _I_ won't be able to drive any more.
I wasnt' actually serious, I'm just putting the "studies say they make
your driving worse" stuff in perspective. Apparently, worse but not as
worse as listening to the radio.
Which is one of the reasons I think they're comparing it to
well-mannered, observant passengers, not an actual full range of the
kind of passengers drivers actually experience.
W. Citoan
> : "W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com>
> : Er, people being impolite while on their cell phone is a pretty rampant
> : phenomenon. While I blame the person over the technology, there are
> : certainly a lot of users who should be (figuratively) smacked upside the
> : head.
>
> Do you mean the talking-in-theater kind of impoliteness, or the
> yakking-while-in-a-checkout-line-slowing-things-down kind of
> impoliteness,
Well, those all qualify per the "while on their cell phone" criteria.
> or the harassing-people-who-don't-have-
> or-don't-answer-a-cellphone kind of impoliteness, or some other kind?
I guess that would depend if they were doing it "while on their cell
phone" or not. Might need to expand the criteria...
- W. Citoan
--
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct,
or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction
of a new order of things.
-- Nicclo Machiavelli
erilar
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> I need the radio on - and
> playing music, not a commercial or some DJ talking to hear themselves talk -
> so that I don't start thinking about something or other, get distracted, and
> tune out that hey, I'm actually driving from one place to another and need to
> PAY ATTENTION to that. For some reason, music I can listen to, or hum/sing
> along with, fills the "does not take very much attention / does not distract
> from the task at hand" slot along with the 'keeps any other distractions, deep
> thinking, etc., at bay' slot.
Works that way for me, too 8-)
erilar
"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Er, people being impolite while on their cell phone is a pretty rampant
> phenomenon. While I blame the person over the technology, there are
> certainly a lot of users who should be (figuratively) smacked upside the
> head.
On the hand holding the phone, thereby solving two problems at the same
time 8-)
Mike Ash
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Michael Stemper
> declared:
> > In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
> >>
> >> Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
> >> privacy and politeness.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
> > Could you explain?
>
> You've never encountered the jackasses who don't realize that
> everyone around them can hear what they're saying into the phone as
> they loudly describe their personal problems?
>
> Or the idiots who think it's okay to talk on the phone while in a
> movie theater? Or don't realize that their LCD screens are
> distracting to the people behind them as they text their friends?
>
> Or the guys so engrossed in their conversation that they don't
> bother to say "excuse me," "please," "thank you," "hello," or
> "good-bye" to the people they're dealing with in meat-space?
>
> Too many people think cell-phones are an excuse to be oblivious to
> everything around them, which meets my criteria for "impolite."
An intelligent being carrying many of objects, one of which is a little
dumb box in his hand, is making loud noises which annoy the other
intelligent beings nearby. And your analysis of this situation is to
blame the box?
People were impolitely loud long before cell phones were invented, and
will be impolitely loud long after some other form of technology
replaces them.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>> privacy and politeness.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
> Could you explain?
>
loudly" into their cell phones in public places, stores and such. These
are the same people who get pissed at you if you politely ask them to
stop yelling so you can hear the person standing next to you.
>> I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
>> legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
>> people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
>> matter what.
>
> I don't see any relationship between this and cell phones, either. Do
> you have a land line? If somebody calls you at 0200, will it ring and
> wake you up? My cell phone comes with an "off" button, which I use
> every night when I go to bed.
>
Why should I have to worry about remembering to turn it off every night
and back on every morning? And yes, it does wake me up when it goes off
in the next room. In part because I spent some years where I had to
wake up for middle of the night calls.
But its not just middle of the night calls I don't want to deal with. I
don't particularly want to take a call while I'm driving or out for a
hike in the woods or in any number of other situations. There are
people who think that just because I can be reached at any time for a
real emergency that their petty little issue that could wait a few hours
or days to be dealt with must be dealt with right this instant.
Granted, this could be better dealt with by people being more courteous
and less self-centered but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Heck, for that matter I get many more wrong number calls to my cell than
I ever have to my landline. (Not the same thing but I'm tired and
cranky right now. So give me your cell number so I can bitch at you. :-P )
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Dimensional Traveler
W. Citoan
The number of people who are impolite in such ways has skyrocketed along with
the proliferation of cell phones. You can argue coincidence over causality,
but claiming it was always this way is a bogus argument.
Dimensional Traveler
than it is to house train the jackass against its will.
Mike Ash
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
Take his box away and he'll just be a jackass in a different way,
though. You haven't solved the problem at all.
Kurt Busiek
It really isn't, since the jackass could then have you arrested for theft.
It may be more fun to rail against the box rather than the jackass, but
as difficult as teaching a jackass manners is, it's still less work
than getting rid of the box.
Mike Ash
"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > People were impolitely loud long before cell phones were invented, and
> > will be impolitely loud long after some other form of technology
> > replaces them.
>
> The number of people who are impolite in such ways has skyrocketed along with
> the proliferation of cell phones. You can argue coincidence over causality,
> but claiming it was always this way is a bogus argument.
I'm not going to argue coincidence, but rather jump straight to not
believing your claim. Lots of people like to say that this problem has
become worse, but I simply don't believe it, and have seen no evidence
for it. The current generation has been a bunch of impolite louts, far
worse than their meek, obedient parents, since before recorded history.
Wayne Throop
::: little dumb box in his hand, is making loud noises which annoy the
::: other intelligent beings nearby. And your analysis of this
::: situation is to blame the box?
:: I blame the jackass but its easier and faster to just take the box
:: away than it is to house train the jackass against its will.
: Take his box away and he'll just be a jackass in a different way,
: though. You haven't solved the problem at all.
But statistically, taking the box away seems to give the jackass
fewer opportunities to bray in public where it annoys folks generally.
Not that I advocate taking the box away. I like my box. And I try
hard not to bray into it in public. But hey, I use it for a pocketwatch
and schedule alarm and 4-function calculator, so I'd really not like
anybody to take it away. But I can see the temptation.
Rebecca Rice
> In article <hd80ad$95c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Rebecca Rice
> (rebecc...@att.net) says...
>
>> I think the thing that bothers me is that in most of the
>> situations where people say "cell phones make life more
>> convenient"... they don't make it any more convenient than
>> the slightest amount of planning does. At a store and not
>
> Except when planning fails, of course. "Oh, we need eggs too; I forgot
> to put them on the list." "We were supposed to meet today? I completely
> forgot, even though we carefully arrangend matters days in advance.
> Sorry."
>
> And then there are the other situations, like when you inexplicably
> fail to make arrengements in case you break your leg while hiking out
> in the woods.
I fully grant that cell phones are handy for emergencies. I
also note that 99.9% of the time that I have seen people
using them, they weren't doing so because of emergencies.
And that the few times I have actually had an emergency
situation (mostly car trouble), I did not have a cell phone,
and amazingly enough had no problem finding a phone to call
the appropriate people or agency to handle the situation.
I will also point out that the main reason that I have a
cell is for those emergency-type situations. (Mostly to
reassure my family that I will have some way of calling for
help while out traveling. The other reason is that I don't
have long-distance on the landline.) I haven't had the
heart to tell them that the few times that having the cell
would have been the most useful, because there were no handy
phones in that area, there was also no cell service. That
is when you are much better off falling back on the old
method of having someone else around with first aid
training, just in case.
>
> Are you comparing the convenience of cell phones to landlines or no
> phones at all? If you can honestly claim phones don't make life more
> convenient... well, I don't know what to say. If you are merely saying
> a phone you can take with you is no more convenient then a phone tied
> to one location, I'll still have to disagree. "Wanna go shopping?"
> "Sorry, I can't, I'm expecting a phone call."
>
If I'm expecting a call important enough to wait for, I want
to be at home, and not trying to hear someone over the noise
of a shopping center, or talking about important, personal,
or confidential information in a public area. Either the
phone call is more important than shopping, so I stay home,
or it's not, in which case the person can leave a message.
So yes, I am saying that a phone that you can take with you
is not more convenient for me than one that is tied to a
certain area.
Rebecca
Rebecca Rice
> erilar wrote:
>> In article <hd7fup$4ic$1...@solani.org>, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we should ban kids from cars, since they can be plenty
>>> distracting.
>>
>> When mine were young I made them both sit in back and stopped the car
>> when they started distracting me by fighting. Needless to say, I
>> wasn't driving on I-anything.
>>
>
> My parents always said that rule was a safety measure - the front seat
> was FAR to dangerous for children to ride in, so we ALWAYS had to sit in
> the back - and not fight, of course. Not even if your sister was putting
> her hand on your side of the seat.
>
My parents had to deal with "He's looking out my window!"
And they retrofitted the car with back seat seat belts,
because they quickly figured out that kids can't fight as
much or cause as much distraction if they are strapped in.
Plus, they did road rallies, which involved driving fast on
some sub-par roads, and it was safer to have us strapped in.
Rebecca
Wayne Throop
: I'm not going to argue coincidence, but rather jump straight to not
: become worse, but I simply don't believe it,
Well, maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall ringing sounds
while watching movies way back when, nor quite so many loud-ish
conversations in various places that used to be relatively quiet,
like waiting rooms and the such.
I also note that for myself, if I'm talking to the person next to me
in a quiet room, I keep my voice very low. But if I'm talking on a
cellphone, I have a tendency to raise my voice. Something about the
feedback, whether visual, or easier to tell room ambiance, or whatever.
Maybe even something as trivial as "this is a tinny voice, so I'd better
shout to be sure I'm heard". Near as I can tell by introspection.
But very hard not to do.
So, I have anecdotal reasons to suppose cellphones increase some
forms of negative interaction.
Wayne Throop
: I fully grant that cell phones are handy for emergencies. I also note
: that 99.9% of the time that I have seen people using them, they
: weren't doing so because of emergencies. And that the few times I
: have actually had an emergency situation (mostly car trouble), I did
: not have a cell phone, and amazingly enough had no problem finding a
: phone to call the appropriate people or agency to handle the
: situation.
FWIW, I've called for a tow about four times over the last 10-ish years.
In two of those cases, it would have been very inconvenient indeed to
locate a phone, so I was plenty glad I had my cell. Though I suppose if
I'd been willing to break into that church that one time to find a phone,
it might not have been too inconvenient. Assuming the church didn't
have alarms or security cameras or somesuch, of course.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
>: I'm not going to argue coincidence, but rather jump straight to not
>: believing your claim. Lots of people like to say that this problem has
>: become worse, but I simply don't believe it,
>
>Well, maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall ringing sounds
>while watching movies way back when, nor quite so many loud-ish
>conversations in various places that used to be relatively quiet,
>like waiting rooms and the such.
>
Cellphones are the least issue in waiting rooms now. My experience in the
last few years is that now *all* have TV, and I almost cannot read in the
same room with a TV. At least there's always the possibility that a cellphone
call will end.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Juho Julkunen
>
> Or the idiots who think it's okay to talk on the phone while in a
> movie theater? Or don't realize that their LCD screens are
> distracting to the people behind them as they text their friends?
Speaking of distractingly bright LCD screens, last time I was at the
movies I encountered an entirely novel (to me, anyway) phenomenon:
laptops in movie theaters.
Luckily the jackass in question finally put it away some ten minutes
into the movie. All the cellphones were away before the movie started.
--
Juho Julkunen
Derek Lyons
>In article <slrnhfh8ka....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org>,
> "W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ash wrote:
>> > People were impolitely loud long before cell phones were invented, and
>> > will be impolitely loud long after some other form of technology
>> > replaces them.
>>
>> The number of people who are impolite in such ways has skyrocketed along with
>> the proliferation of cell phones. You can argue coincidence over causality,
>> but claiming it was always this way is a bogus argument.
>
>I'm not going to argue coincidence, but rather jump straight to not
>believing your claim. Lots of people like to say that this problem has
>become worse, but I simply don't believe it, and have seen no evidence
>for it. The current generation has been a bunch of impolite louts, far
>worse than their meek, obedient parents, since before recorded history.
Yes, people being loud impolite louts on cellphones since before
recorded history.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Rebecca Rice
I read an irate letter to an editor, where a parent was
complaining that they did not want their kids put in the
position that they could see the porn that someone was
watching on his car's DVD player while parked outside a
store. It's amazing what people don't think of.
Rebecca
Juho Julkunen
> Juho Julkunen wrote:
> > In article <hd80ad$95c$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Rebecca Rice
> > (rebecc...@att.net) says...
> >
> >> I think the thing that bothers me is that in most of the
> >> situations where people say "cell phones make life more
> >> convenient"... they don't make it any more convenient than
> >> the slightest amount of planning does.
> So yes, I am saying that a phone that you can take with you
> is not more convenient for me than one that is tied to a
> certain area.
I'm sorry, I thought from the first post you were talking about the
conveinence of cell phones in general, rather than for you in
particular. Certainly I'm not goint to presume to know your situation
better than you.
It is more convenient for me, though. One example: for me, and for
millions of my fellow Finns with summer cabins, a phone that you can
take with you is much more convenient than a phone that you can't take
with you, or two phones you can't take with you. That was the primary
reason my father bought his first car phone (roughly the size of a
jerrycan).
Generally speaking it seems to me that even a marginal increase in
convenience from a phone being portable ought to make it more
convenient than a phone which lacks this property.
And of course modern cell phones have other advantages, too.
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
I've read one of the factors involved is that a cellphone, unlike
a landline handset, doesn't echo your own voice back into your
ear. Someone used to hearing himself in the handset, and
suddenly NOT hearing himself on the cellphone, might assume that
the cell's signal is tuned too low, and/or that he himself is
speaking too softly.
I have no idea how I come across on a cellphone, the few times
I've tried to use one. But I generally can't hear the other
person worth a damn. This fact prevents me from ever having to
figure out the wilderness of little buttons on the front of the
thing.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dorothy J Heydt
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>
>Cellphones are the least issue in waiting rooms now. My experience in the
>last few years is that now *all* have TV, and I almost cannot read in the
>same room with a TV.
Oh, $DEITY. When I went into the ER with what turned out to be
pancreatitis ... and we are talking about severe abdominal pain
here, 10.5 on a scale of 1-10 ... I was asked to sit in the
waiting room with all the rest of the sufferers. And the
television was on. I forget what it was, but it was loud and
mindless. I couldn't stay inside there, and wandering around in
the waiting area (I couldn't sit down on a padded chair, either)
I found a little room with about six seats in it and no TV. I
perched over a seat there, with my weight on my arms instead of
my backside (which would've compressed my abdomen painfully) for
about half an hour till they called me in ... and laid me down on
a gurney ... and eventually filled me full of Demerol and
admitted me, not necessarily in that order.
Wayne Throop
: But I generally can't hear the other
: person worth a damn. This fact prevents me from ever having to
: figure out the wilderness of little buttons on the front of the
: thing.
Hm. Well, not that it helps you hear anybody... or really, helps anythng,
but I do wonder about the "wilderness" part. A minimal "jitterbug" phone
has a standard phone pad, with 10 digits plus "*" and "#", then yes, no,
up, down, power, and speakerphone buttons. So, six extra buttons, each of
which is fairly non-mysterious; the "up" and "down" are to navigate menus.
Even my bog-standard phone has the standard phone pad, plus left, right,
up, down, ok, send, end, clear, leftmenu and rightmenu. Which is a
*little* more wilderness-like than a jitterbug, but really, four butons to
navigate and move a cursor, one to select, two to bring up menus, two to
start and stop phonecalls, and one to clear out partial entries, Doesn't
seem all *that* formidable. Basically, in computer keyboard terms, that's
the four arrow buttons, enter, backspace, and four function keys to learn;
function keys with suggestive names.
Well, there's the whole "press send to receive" and "press end to start"
thing, but really, that's not hard to learn, it's just humorous.
But mostly, it's just menus in english. You use the arrow keys and
the "OK" key for about 90 percent of keyclicks in normal. Another
nine percent is use of "send" and "end" (or, off-hook and on-hook,
approximately).
"Before I studied the martial arts, to me a kick was just
a kick, a punch was just a punch. When I had studied enough
to become skilled, a kick was no longer just a kick, a punch
no longer just a punch. When I finally understood, once more
a kick was just a kick, a punch was just a punch."
--- Bruce Lee (paraphrased)
(and not all that original with him)
(and so it is with cell phones, too)
David DeLaney
>Not that I advocate taking the box away. I like my box. And I try
>hard not to bray into it in public. But hey, I use it for a pocketwatch
>and schedule alarm and 4-function calculator, so I'd really not like
>anybody to take it away. But I can see the temptation.
This section of the thread has repeatedly reminded me of
I'm writing (this post) on a lump of plastic and metal that's smaller than a
packet of cigarettes. I've just finished doing some rather intensive research
into the Twilight Zone. I have done all of this while sitting on the bus. I
intend to go on to watch a video on the same lump before I get home. This
future is cooler than jet-pack future. - DigitalRaven, refuting jet-pack
complaining in the best way.
, from the signature of one Zemi on RPG.net's forums.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Cryptoengineer
> > (seanoh...@gmail.com) says...
>
> >> Or the idiots who think it's okay to talk on the phone while in a
> >> movie theater? Or don't realize that their LCD screens are
> >> distracting to the people behind them as they text their friends?
>
> > Speaking of distractingly bright LCD screens, last time I was at the
> > movies I encountered an entirely novel (to me, anyway) phenomenon:
> > laptops in movie theaters.
>
> > Luckily the jackass in question finally put it away some ten minutes
> > into the movie. All the cellphones were away before the movie started.
>
> I read an irate letter to an editor, where a parent was
> complaining that they did not want their kids put in the
> position that they could see the porn that someone was
> watching on his car's DVD player while parked outside a
> store. It's amazing what people don't think of.
I've seen this two or three times, on the big drop-down screens in
SUVs on the highway. I've also heard of people getting arrested for
it, to no surprise.
pt
Cryptoengineer
> In article <slrnhfh3ak.r03....@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
> > I need the radio on - and
> > playing music, not a commercial or some DJ talking to hear themselves talk -
> > so that I don't start thinking about something or other, get distracted, and
> > tune out that hey, I'm actually driving from one place to another and need to
> > PAY ATTENTION to that. For some reason, music I can listen to, or hum/sing
> > along with, fills the "does not take very much attention / does not distract
> > from the task at hand" slot along with the 'keeps any other distractions, deep
> > thinking, etc., at bay' slot.
>
> Works that way for me, too 8-)
On long highway trips alone, I find audio books and radio dramas help
me keep alert and engaged. On minor roads and in the city, the
entertainment is OFF.
pt
Kurt Busiek
While it wasn't porn, I recall driving down a highway at night and was
passed by a tour bus with large drop-down TV screens showing some movie
-- BACHELOR PARTY, maybe? -- with a stripper scene, and we were treated
to close-ups of a topless Tawny Kitaen (or whoever) as we made our way
down the highway.
I can't say I didn't appreciate the view, but I would assume there were
kids in some of those cars whose parents might not have wanted them to
see that.
Mike Ash
fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrnhfh8ka....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org>,
> > "W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mike Ash wrote:
> >> > People were impolitely loud long before cell phones were invented, and
> >> > will be impolitely loud long after some other form of technology
> >> > replaces them.
> >>
> >> The number of people who are impolite in such ways has skyrocketed along
> >> with
> >> the proliferation of cell phones. You can argue coincidence over
> >> causality,
> >> but claiming it was always this way is a bogus argument.
> >
> >I'm not going to argue coincidence, but rather jump straight to not
> >believing your claim. Lots of people like to say that this problem has
> >become worse, but I simply don't believe it, and have seen no evidence
> >for it. The current generation has been a bunch of impolite louts, far
> >worse than their meek, obedient parents, since before recorded history.
>
> Yes, people being loud impolite louts on cellphones since before
> recorded history.
If you're going to make fun of what I say, could you do me a favor and
actually make fun of *what I say*, rather than a mangled paraphrase of
it?
Mike Ash
Juho Julkunen <giao...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's interesting how reluctant people are to just tell the jerk to stop
annoying people. I don't mean this as criticism, as I certainly fall
into that category as well.
Maybe this sort of thing is cyclic. People, growing up in a situation
where basic standards of politeness are followed, rarely or never have
to tell someone to stop violating those standards. Then technology
changes and standards fall behind. People start being jerks, but others
are not equipped to tell them to stop. Younger people, growing up with
more active jerks, are better equipped to tell them off. Standards
reassert themselves, and the next generation goes back to being unable
to tell off jerks.
Mike Ash
Rebecca Rice <rebecc...@att.net> wrote:
Another phenomenon which is not at all tech-specific. A Playboy from
1953 would cause the exact same problem.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
No, it really wouldn't. Playboy centerfolds weren't backlit, and were
generally held relatively low, where DVD-player screens in vans and
SUVs are typically mounted on the ceiling and are therefore much more
visible to people outside the vehicle, and the backlighting draws
attention.
Also, a Playboy from 1953 wasn't "porn" by most standards; it was a
big deal circa 1970 that Penthouse showed pubic hair, something
Playboy had never done. I assume the parent complaining in the letter
to the editor had something a good bit more explicit in mind.
So a 1953 Playboy might pose a vaguely similar problem, but not "the
exact same problem."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Cheryl
I would have thought that you could see the screen of a DVD player from
much further away than the centrefold in a magazine, unless someone
holds the centrefold up to the car window or something.
But I guess it depends on the size and position of the DVD player
screen, too.
--
Cheryl
Michael Stemper
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>> In article <4af761b0$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
>>> Well, at least for me, my dislike of cell phones is from a desire for
>>> privacy and politeness.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't see any relationship between cell phones and politeness.
>> Could you explain?
>>
>It was poorly explained on my part. I'm tired of people "speaking
>loudly" into their cell phones in public places, stores and such.
I'm not sure how your non-posession of a cell phone changes
anything, though.
>>> I've worked where being available 24/7/365 is a
>>> legitimate requirement. Its draining over time and the huge majority of
>>> people have _no_ legitimate need to be able to reach me at any time no
>>> matter what.
>>
>> I don't see any relationship between this and cell phones, either. Do
>> you have a land line? If somebody calls you at 0200, will it ring and
>> wake you up? My cell phone comes with an "off" button, which I use
>> every night when I go to bed.
>>
>Why should I have to worry about remembering to turn it off every night
So that it doesn't ring at night. My land line rang at night, waking
me up. My cell phone doesn't, because I turn it off. I was pointing out
how it could be to your advantage, given your expressly stated desire
not to be accessible 24/7/365.
>and back on every morning? And yes, it does wake me up when it goes off
>in the next room. In part because I spent some years where I had to
>wake up for middle of the night calls.
Well, if you want to continue to be awakened in the middle of the night,
then a cell phone isn't as much of an advantage. You can leave it on,
of course, but that's the default state of a land line, so it's not
a selling point for this use case.
>But its not just middle of the night calls I don't want to deal with. I
>don't particularly want to take a call while I'm driving or out for a
>hike in the woods or in any number of other situations.
Well, then, don't. Having a phone with you doesn't obligate you to
answer it. When I get a phone call, there are three scenarios,
depending upon what I'm doing at the moment:
1. Answer it.
2. Look at the Caller ID to decide whether to answer it or
let it go to voice mail, based upon who's calling.
3. Ignore it.
(Sometimes, such as during church, it's turned off. I don't consider
that "getting a phone call".)
Scenario 1 almost never happens, because I check at least closely
enough to make sure that it's not a telemarketer. They invariably
have their Caller ID blocked; I invariably don't answer those calls.
> There are
>people who think that just because I can be reached at any time for a
>real emergency that their petty little issue that could wait a few hours
>or days to be dealt with must be dealt with right this instant.
Yes, there are assholes out there. Do you associate with them
volutarily?
>Heck, for that matter I get many more wrong number calls to my cell than
>I ever have to my landline.
If it's a wrong number, why do you answer? This used to be the
punchline to a stupid joke. With Caller ID, it's a real option.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.